The real answer to all of this is scrap the corporate tax rate entirely. It’s only 6% of the total revenue the government takes in anyway.
The main payers are not these large corporations, it’s the little guy who can’t retain earnings year over year without paying that statutory rate. The little guy doesn’t have offshore entities and transfer pricing. And these little guys are 75% of corporate tax receipts!
Scrap the whole thing and this shell game disappears.
i generally think we should tax people, not corporate entities. if we want to extract money from corporations, probably should just tax capital gains directly.
So I can park money in a corporate entity and then use it to buy everything for me? This seems like an amazing loophole. Never extract your cash from a company and you never pay tax!
Spending corporate money on non corporate expenses would be fraud. You can’t do that regardless of the tax rate.
What this does allow for is carrying over profits from year to year for small businesses that operate on a cash accounting basis. Which in turn allows multi year planning without taking a 22% hit.
Never extracting the profits would lock them away in the corporation with no means of spending them. It’s definitely a possibility, but it’s not really an issue for public corporations because the shareholders wouldn’t want a company just sitting on cash.
> Spending corporate money on non corporate expenses would be fraud
Where does it say that? And what are non-corporate expenses anyway? Keeping the founder happy surely is a corporate expense otherwise this guy would rot in prison
> but it’s not really an issue for public corporations because the shareholders wouldn’t want a company just sitting on
What if my company just held on to the cash but every share had some ownership of that cash. Sure, it probably wouldn't trade at par, but it would also be silly for it to trade at the payout rate considering it's non taxable.
Could the paper backed by my corporation become a new currency?
No, don’t you see, removing those burdensome taxes will spur corporate investment and grow the economy. You may Laff, but I can draw a curve that shows eliminating corporate taxes is the right thing to do. Just don’t ask Kansas.
> Taxes on producers inevitably get passed on to consumers.
And just like any tax on consumption, it would have an outsized effect on lower income consumers. That’s not necessarily wrong or unintended, but it’s the reality of any program like this.
If this were CA, there would be some cockamamie “low income meat consumer tax credit” proposed alongside. And then even if it’s added, it’ll get removed after a few years so just the tax remains.
And those priced out people are voting for right wing parties promising to cancel those taxes. Those right wing parties might not do that, but people on the left should not be surprised why EU is leaning more and more to the right.
Agreed. It's well-established that protein from greens isn't as bioavailable as protein from meat. Hard not to worry about negatively impacting future generations of lower-income families.
It absolutely would work if the browser validates the SRI hash. The whole point is to know in advance what you expect to receive from the remote site and verify the actual bytes against the known hash.
It wouldn’t work for some ancient browser that doesn’t do SRI checks. But it’s no worse for that user than without it.
The CDN in this case is performing an additional function which is incompatible with SRI: it is dynamically rendering a custom JS script based on the requesting User Agent, so the website authors aren't able to compute and store a hash ahead of time.
I edited to make my comment more clear but polyfill.io sends dynamic polyfills based on what features the identified browser needs. Since it changes, the SRI hash would need to change so that part won't work.
Ah! I didn’t realize that. My new hot take is that sounds like a terrible idea and is effectively giving full control of the user’s browser to the polyfill site.
And this hot take happens to be completely correct (and is why many people didn't use it, in spite of others yelling that they were needlessly re-inventing the wheel).
Yeah... I've generated composite fills with the pieces I would need on the oldest browser I had to support, unfortunately all downstream browsers would get it.
Fortunately around 2019 or so, I no longer had to support any legacy (IE) browsers and pretty much everything supported at least ES2016. Was a lovely day and cut a lot of my dependencies.
They are saying that because the content of the script file is dynamic based on useragent and what that useragent currently supports in-browser, the integrity hash would need to also be dynamic which isn't possible to know ahead of time.
Their point is that the result changes depending on the request. It isn't a concern about the SRI hash not getting checked, it is that you can't realistically know the what you expect in advance.
You'd probably want an alternative libc implementation rather than a compiler flag.
However, calloc everywhere won't save you from smashing the stack or pointer type confusion (a common source of JavaScript exploits). Very rarely is leftover data from freed memory the source of an exploit.
It’s always a scam because money is fungible and unless the underlying asset itself is held by a separate entity, you’re always at the whim of the party in power.
Not OP, but tying some new revenue source to some existing expenditure very often is. A classic example in the US would be lottery and casino revenues. Bills or referrenda legalising these (fairly recent, largely since the 1980s) were generally sold to the public as a source of revenue for public education. In the case of California, those services had been paid for through state and local property taxes which were capped (or kneecapped, depending on your point of view) through the 1978 referrendum Proposition 13, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13>.
In the case of lottery / casino revenues, the initial messaging was that these would provide additional funds for education. In time, general funds allocations for education have declined, justified by the availability of gambling taxes, funds, and fees. That's on top of further problems and externalities of gambling, including gambling addiction, organised crime, political corroption, and the like.
> I’m saying we should legalize the giving away of all books, but must rearrange society to ensure authors and all people still have the support the previously got from the existing system.
There’s no way to implement this without taking away the freedoms of the author to choose how to distribute the fruits of his labor. Just because you think the world would be a better place if they all did that does not mean it’s an acceptable proposition.
First of all I’m not saying we should do this just because it’s what I believe. I’m saying we should all actually spend time considering the value of this proposal and make up our own minds. But I’m not looking for knee-jerk responses, there’s too much at stake. We seriously need to consider the implications of the current system which requires vast stores of information that are freely available to be removed from public access.
Second, the only way authors can have this “freedom” you argue for is through vast sweeping government-mandated restrictions on and punishments for the sharing of information. Authors can only have this freedom by taking away the freedom of would-be librarians like IA, and only with massive government interventions. My proposal eliminates the need for government intervention in markets.
And this isn’t strictly some lefty idea either. I’ve really enjoyed this talk by a libertarian capitalist lawyer at the Mises Institute arguing that intellectual property as a concept hampers capitalism. It’s full of a bunch of great arguments and since you seem to be interested in this subject I’d encourage you to check it out!
In practice, almost no author gets to choose how the fruits of their labor are distributed. Their rights are gobbled up immediately by one of the big publishers, who then dispose of their captive intellectual property as they see fit.
To the publisher, if copyright was to terminate upon death, would the publisher then pay less for the works from a 70 year old author compared to a 30 year old? Or one that is fighting cancer or one that has sky diving as a hobby?
Is the value of the work of the author to be measured against their remaining lifetime?
In most cases this isn't accurate. The author (or, more commonly, their agent) submits the book to several publishers, who either accept or reject or refer for edits. Unless you're in the top percentile of published authors, there's very little room for negotiation. It's pretty rare for an author to have more than one "accept" on a work simultaneously, many publishers frown on multiple submission precisely because it can lead to a bidding war.
The author always chooses the publisher. They might not have many (or even multiple) options, but there is no coercion and the author can choose to keep looking for a different publisher, to go with a lower-tier publisher, to publish themselves, to publish via vanity press, or not to publish at all.
Maybe the person isn't libertarian then and you just misread said libertarian undertones? I'm not sure what's the point here, he can argue for some positions that might be libertarian in isolation, without being libertarian at all.
Do you agree that humans should be free to associate with other humans for example? Does that make you a libertarian? What about cannabis prohibition?
Agreed. In a sibling comment I just shared this lecture by a libertarian capitalist at the Mises institute arguing that intellectual property restrictions hamper capitalism.
I edited the 2nd one because it was an actual typo, but ironically the American south is not one of the regions where I've lived. I just find "y'all" clearer than any of its alternatives!
So they found the bug, tested it with a series of increasing amounts, and then 8 hours after the last “larger amount test” let them Kraken know about the issue.
Imagine being on the Kraken side and noticing the discrepancy during that window of time. Or even worse, them not knowing it.
The main payers are not these large corporations, it’s the little guy who can’t retain earnings year over year without paying that statutory rate. The little guy doesn’t have offshore entities and transfer pricing. And these little guys are 75% of corporate tax receipts!
Scrap the whole thing and this shell game disappears.
reply